The Closing Argument...

"Pig" at the Tate residence. "Death to pigs" at the LaBianca residence.

Now, what is the legal relevance? What is the legal relevance of these similarities to you? The legal relevance is simply this: If you ladies and gentlemen of the jury believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Manson, Watson, Atkins, and Krenwinkel are the Tate killers, you are convinced of this fact, inasmuch as there are a remarkable number of unique similarities between the Tate murders and the LaBianca murders, the fact that Manson, Watson, Atkins, and Krenwinkel were the Tate killers is circumstantial evidence that they were also the LaBianca killers.

When you go back to that jury room you may consider this as circumstantial evidence against Manson, Atkins, and Krenwinkel on the LaBianca murders.

Briefly discussing the rules of law under which these defendants are guilty of these murders, you will recall my earlier discussion, beginning with my opening argument regarding the law which you are going to be dealing with during your deliberations, all of these defendants are charged in count eight of the indictment with the crime of conspiracy to commit murder.

Conspiracy is nothing more than an agreement, getting together, agreeing to commit a crime, followed by an overt act to carry out the object of the conspiracy. Conspiracies can be and normally are proven by circumstantial evidence.

In this case, we proved the conspiracy by direct evidence; Linda Kasabian, ladies and gentlemen, was present with these defendants and she told you everything that happened in her presence. To have a conspiracy it is not necessary that the conspirators enter into any formal agreement. All that is necessary is that there be a meeting of the minds; that they be working together toward a common goal.

There couldn't possibly be a more obvious conspiracy than this case, ladies and gentlemen. To say that on these two nights these defendants did not have a meeting of the minds and they were not working together toward the common goal would just be totally preposterous.

The object of the conspiracy on both nights was murder, and these defendants, working together with deadly and savage precision, carried out that mission of murder by mercilessly cutting down their victims. All defendants are guilty of count eight of the indictment, the count of conspiracy to commit murder.

What about the first seven counts of murder, what about those counts?

Patricia Krenwinkel is guilty of all seven counts of murder because it is obvious from the evidence that she was one of the actual killers of the Tate and LaBianca victims.

Susan Atkins is guilty of the five Tate murders because she was one of the actual killers of the Tate victims.

Leslie Van Houten is guilty of the two LaBianca murders because it is obvious from the evidence that she was one of the actual killers of Mr. and Mrs. LaBianca.

Since Charles Manson was not one of the actual killers of the seven victims, and since Susan Atkins was not one of the killers of Mr. and Mrs. LaBianca, under what rule oflaw are they guilty of these murders?

more on the closing argument